It's now illegal to turn on your computer

[Scott]

While trekkies certain hold a lot of ground in our
society, I really wish there would be more movies
about Arthur C. Clarke.  They are already working on
Rama, but where are 2061 and 3001?  You talk about a
utopian society, pick up 3001 sometime and see just
how crazy and far humanity could go as far as
intellectual property is concerned.  I sort of like
the idea of being able to wake up, put on a braincap,
and see the latest images of Neptune in my mind.

--- Tony E - Jaraeth <jaraeth at phoenixwing.com> wrote:

> Call me crazy, call me geeky... I kind of wish I
> could see Gene
> Roddenberry's idea of society come to fruition.  No
> more bounderies of
> money & barter.  Instead, a society that provides
> for one another, and
> people have jobs that they like, and benefit the
> rest of society.  A
> place where everyone has a job, be it an artist,
> farmer/agriculturalist,
> or some other trade.  Canada is partly there with
> the government
> provided health care.
> 
> Now if music artists decide to play music for the
> entertainment of
> society, and people provide for their needs, we get
> closer to a type of
> utopian society in my opinion.  Problem is, people
> are greedy.  They
> want one of a kind pieces of art, not reprints or
> reproductions.  They
> want all the money or physical wealth.   Probably
> not in my lifetime, or
> the next 5... but I dream of a day we live like
> those envisioned in Star
> Trek.  Oddly enough, much of the theories discussed
> in Star Trek are
> relevant, and "theoretically possible"... maybe a
> society without this
> crappy DMCA, RIAA & screwed up society bent on
> wealth, maybe then,
> humanity will get back on course... but I digress,
> World War 3 would
> happen before that.
> 
> Just my two pence... wait, inflation, just my $20.
> 
>  ~ Tony E
> 
> 
> 
> Craig White wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-12-30 at 23:31 -0700, Joshua Zeidner
> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 12/30/07, Craig White <craigwhite at azapple.com>
> wrote:
> >>     
> >>> On Sun, 2007-12-30 at 22:42 -0700, Joshua
> Zeidner wrote:
> >>>       
> >>>> On 12/30/07, Kevin Brown
> <kevin_brown at qwest.net> wrote:
> >>>>         
> >>>>>>>> cannot ignore the need for some level of
> province.  Without fences,
> >>>>>>>> there are no crops.
> >>>>>>>>                 
> >>>>>>> Really? Most of the farms I know of don't
> have fences. They seem to pull
> >>>>>>> in lots of crops.
> >>>>>>>               
> >>>>>>   Really?  I think I'll just go over there
> and get me some.  Who says
> >>>>>> whats wild and what is the farmers property?
> >>>>>>             
> >>>>> That they don't have fences does not mean that
> it is open access for
> >>>>> all.  I've lived in communities where fences
> were against building codes
> >>>>> for a few reasons.  One, they are unsightly
> and block people's view.
> >>>>> Two, they impeded the wildlife of the area. 
> Lots of farms (rather than
> >>>>> ranches) don't have them as it makes it easier
> to get access to the crop
> >>>>> areas with the farming equipment.  Ranches
> have some fences to contain
> >>>>> the animals so they can be tracked and less
> likely to be a problem
> >>>>> (cattle in the roads...)
> >>>>>           
> >>>>   ok... I think you may be missing my point
> here.  I'm not sure if
> >>>> Hans is trying to drive home some point, or hes
> trying to look daft by
> >>>> throwing wingnuts around.  The point is,
> whether you have a physical
> >>>> fence or not, there are boundaries.  One of the
> most basic, if not the
> >>>> most basic, form of property is land.  Most
> anthropologists beleive
> >>>> that our concepts of land ownership were
> introduced with the advent of
> >>>> agriculture.  The basic thing to establish is
> that, no farmer is going
> >>>> to invest in cultivating crops unless he is
> offered some kind of
> >>>> assurance that the land he works is his, or his
> /property/.  Call it a
> >>>> fence, call it a boundary, whatever you want.
> >>>>
> >>>>   now, what we are currently trying to do is to
> extend our concept of
> >>>> property to the world of ideas.  Its not really
> a new development, as
> >>>> copyright has been around for a long time,
> however its introduction
> >>>> does appear to coincide with the beginning of
> 'modernism'.  However
> >>>> the current crisis is that we are starting to
> realize that were not
> >>>> dealing with land here, but we are treating it
> as such.  But, some of
> >>>> the aspects persist... no one is going to
> cultivate land, or in our
> >>>> case /ideas/, or /software/ or /art/, unless
> they know it will be
> >>>> their property.  So if we cease to support the
> notion of ideas as
> >>>> property... will production cease?
> >>>>         
> >>> ----
> >>> I have no interest in the borders/fences
> metaphors myself
> >>>
> >>> There are legal constructs for the idea of
> racketeering, extortion, and
> >>> then of course, there is always the notion of
> what rights/restrictions
> >>> are conveyed upon purchase.
> >>>
> >>> As for the notion of ideas as property, that of
> course is what the DMCA
> >>> has always been about and that clearly pits the
> consumers against the
> >>> producers as their interests clearly conflict. I
> think that if the
> >>> value / pricing curve were reasonable for
> consumers, there wouldn't be
> >>> that much of an issue. The fact remains that
> music CD's are
> >>> comparatively out of scale. It appears that the
> cause for these out of
> >>> scale prices is an antiquated system of control
> over production and
> >>> distribution that drives a massive wedge between
> the artists and the
> >>> consumers.
> >>>
> >>> Corporate interests are always pitted against
> those of the public and if
> >>> I recall correctly, the Sherman Anti-Trust act
> was borne for precisely
> >>> these issues. Unfortunately, 12 years of
> Republican rule has pushed the
> >>> pendulum way too far to the corporate interests
> which is why we are
> >>> seeing things like health care costs skyrocket,
> etc. - not that the
> >>> Democrats have given any indication that this is
> going to change any
> >>> time soon. I think I stated early on that I
> didn't necessarily want to
> >>> turn this into a political discussion but you
> seem insistent on
> >>> parroting the rights of the corporations here.
> >>>
> >>> Craig
> >>>
> >>>       
> >>    well I'll try to be as concise as possible.  I
> think that some
> >> balance does need to be brought to the debate for
> it to gain
> >> legitimacy.  Right now the problem is exposure of
> these issues.  I
> >> don't currently support the idea that we should
> abandon all
> >> Intellectual Property, and it seems that the most
> vocal people do
> >> advocate this stance.
> >>
> >>    regarding Anti-Trust etc.  I think that there
> are key aspects of
> >> American law that appear to be totally ignored by
> the powers that be,
> >> and that are an important part of the American
> way of governance.  And
> >> this attitude will only cost America in the end. 
> I do concur with a
> >> point you appear to allude to, that a big problem
> is a defective
> >> American left-wing.
> >>     
> > ----
> > gosh...let's not go there (left wing politics) -
> mass media is now under
> > complete control by other interests and not at all
> likely to get better
> 
=== message truncated ===



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs